State of Missouri v. Michael E. Amick, 2015 Mo. LEXIS 95

Michael Amick was charged with first-degree murder and second-degree arson; a jury convicted him of second-degree murder and second-degree arson and the court imposed concurrent sentences (life and seven years).
After trial evidence, the court excused Alternate Juror 14 before deliberations; the jury then began deliberating.
After more than five hours of deliberation a principal juror (Juror 12) was excused for health reasons; the court recalled Juror 14 and substituted her for Juror 12.
Defense counsel objected, requested a mistrial, and alternatively asked to send the jury home; the court overruled the motion and told the jury to continue deliberations.
The jury reached a guilty verdict within an hour of resuming deliberations; Amick appealed, arguing the post-deliberation substitution violated section 494.485 and deprived him of a fair trial.

Issue	Amick's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether substituting an alternate juror after the jury begins deliberations violated § 494.485 and required reversal	Substitution violated § 494.485 because alternates may replace jurors only "prior to the time the jury retires" and alternates are discharged once deliberations commence; the substitution deprived him of his right to the same 12 jurors and a unanimous verdict	The State disputed preservation but otherwise defended the substitution; preservation was addressed and Amick’s objection was held sufficient	Court held the substitution violated § 494.485 and was reversible error; judgment reversed and case remanded

State v. Stepter, 794 S.W.2d 649 (Mo. banc 1990) (preservation requires specific objection to inform the trial court)
State v. Pointer, 887 S.W.2d 652 (Mo. App. 1994) (preservation rules help define precise claim)
In re Brockmire, 424 S.W.3d 445 (Mo. banc 2014) (de novo review for statutory legal questions)
State v. Bobo, 814 S.W.2d 353 (Tenn. 1991) (alternate discharged upon jury retirement is no longer a juror)
State v. Hadley, 815 S.W.2d 422 (Mo. banc 1991) (right to jury trial and unanimous verdict is fundamental)
State v. Johnson, 968 S.W.2d 123 (Mo. banc 1998) (statute does not bar an alternate who did not deliberate in guilt phase from deliberating in penalty phase)
State v. Finley, 403 S.W.3d 625 (Mo. App. 2012) (presumption that trial judges know and apply the law)
Dycus v. Cross, 869 S.W.2d 745 (Mo. banc 1994) (same presumption regarding judicial knowledge of law)